'Why You Suddenly Denotified Lands? This Has To Be Investigated' : Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against HD Kumaraswamy

The Supreme Court on February 25 dismissed a petition filed in 2020 by JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) seeking to quash a corruption case over the denotification of two plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), during his tenure as Karnataka Chief Minister between June 2006 and October 2007, allegedly for pecuniary gains.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's 2019 judgment which refused to quash the proceedings.

Kumaraswamy contended that prior sanction was required from the authority to investigate him for the allegation of corruption in view of the amendment under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018.

In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed disagreement with this line of argument, saying that the protection of the 2018 amendment was not available when the offence was allegedly committed.

During yesterday's hearing, on being asked by Justice Bindal at what stage the proceedings are now, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Kumaraswamy, stated it is at the stage of cognisance.

Rohatgi submitted that although the High Court dismissed his plea, the Court left the issue of sanction open. He added: "The principle question is, I will show to your lordship, not only sanction under Section 19 is prerequisite, it was wrongly deferred by first judge. But that chapter is now closed. He gave a long judgment. The battle then proceeded without sanction. We are raising the question of sanction repeatedly. Neither the first learned judge nor the Trial Court looked at it. Now, there is a trial without sanction...Second question, the complaint and the testimony of complainant does not make out any case..."

Justice Bindal interjected here and stated that the issue in regards to the second question has already been dismissed against the petitioner. So, what is left is the question of sanction only.  

On the issue of de-notification of the lands, Rohatgi argued: "He did not de-notify hundreds of plots. Not like people gave money and he kept on de-notifying. It is de-notification of one or two pieces of land [which has to be understood] somewhere in isolation. There it is also important to see who this man [complainant] is." 

However, Justice Datta responded that even if two plots were de-notified, it should have been through following the process which included passing it through the de-notification committee. However, this was not followed here. He said: "Why would you all of a sudden, leaving all your work, do this de-notification? Therefore, it has to be investigated. It does not mean you had done anything wrong all mal intention...

Justice Datta asked: "Who prayed for de-notification?"

When Rohatgi answered that it was the owner of the land who sought de-notification, Justice Datta said: "Was she the owner of the land on the date of application? She had sold it...She was not the owner of the land [when it was denotified]...She sold it in 2004 and the representation is made in 2005. It was not a representation by Shanta [one of the alleged owners of the plot that was denotified]...At this stage, we are not going to hold."

In this case, one M.S. Mahadeva Swamy filed a private complaint before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Bangalore City seeking prosecution of HD Kumaraswamy and 18 others for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B r/w. 406, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of IPC, sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act read with 34 of IPC.

Case Details: H. D. KUMARSWAMY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.|SLP(Crl) No. 6740/2020  

Click Here To Read/Download Order